RadioBanter - View Single Post

December 10th 03, 09:15 AM

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

I don't think any way is cheap or easy, Jim. It's jsut a matter
of idealogy...I'd rather my money went to Russians than to people who
think it's OK to treat women like property and use children as "human
shields".

And you might want to look up just how much oil the USA imports from
the Middle East. It's not as much as many people think.

It's got to be enough to keep OPEC rich, though...I don't see too
many soup lines in Saudi Arabia.

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

More so than you might imagine ;-)

I've been over there before, Jim...Back when Soddom...I meant
Saddam... was our "friend". I didn't like them as friends, so I can
only imagine what it's like for the guys over there now.

Point is, Russian oil isn't a quick, cheap and easy fix.

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.

I always thought that the biggest danger was that a war would start by
mistake rather than intent.

That doesn't mean the Soviets never wanted to take over, just that
they never wanted to take over a burnt out radioactive cinder of a
world.

The Russians wouldn't nuke us cuz they'd want to occupy us
afterwards. The Rags will nuke us because Allah said to, and be happy
to do it, consequences be damned.

The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

Or somebody who didn't really care if they or their society survived
or not.

That seven virgins thing sounds pretty good to enough of them, it
seems...I can only accept that they will continue thier current path
unless we find a way to derail them. Nuking them is out of the
question and biological weapons can't be controlled. I say we cut off
thier money and let them go back to using camels for transportation
instead of physical gratification.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem.

Exactly!

The solutions are always on the supply side, as if demand is sacred.
Heaven forbid anyone say that putting 25,000 miles per year on a
vehicle that gets 15 MPG isn't an inalienable right.

We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades.

In 1980 I bought a car that got over 40 mpg in the city and over 50
mpg on the road. And it weighed 2200+ pounds, met all the pollution
and safety requirements and was fun to drive. No ignition noise,
either. Of course it was small, but it was big enough for
six-foot-three-inch me and lots of stuff besides.

But cars like that aren't what Americans are told to want, so most of
them don't. They're not "babe magnets".

I owned a "babe magnet" once...till I found out I was the
babe magnet, not the car! ! ! (Well...a guy can have his dreams,
can't he...?!?!)

And if someone suggests that there may be better ways to travel than
4000 pound 250+ HP private cars, and jet airplanes, they're called
"socialists" and "tree huggers"....

And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

Think about why. Does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell? "What do we
do with a drunken sailor......"

He was only half the problem...the other half was the oil
companies that cut costs on single-hulled tankers.

Also check put how much oil those reserves would actually supply if
fully developed. And how much it costs...

And remember that one point of the philosophy is to preserve *our*
reserves...

Also recall what event sparked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It
was FDR's decision to effectively stop the sales of oil, steel and
other strategic materials to Japan in response to their war of
aggression in China. Most important of these to Japan was the the
supply of oil, because without it their war machine would not be able
to function for long. So they decided to attack and hopefully win a
quick war that would secure for them a secure source of oil in
Southeast Asia and the surrounding areas. Yet they missed a key target
in their attack planning: they never attacked the tank farm above
Pearl Harbor. And in the end they found themselves short of oil
because American submarines and aircraft were sinking their tankers
faster than they could be replaced.

Then there's Ploesti.....

In the end, I say we need to focus on being self-sufficient for basic
necessities - and *all* of the changes needed to bring that about.
Energy supply is a basic necessity for an industrial society.

I'd say you're right!

73

Steve, K4YZ